ISOC is going to need a lot of healing.
It was very divisive, and pitted senior management and the Board against Chapters and membership.
And there's still the question of whether ISOC wants to divest of PIR (which was never the focus of the opposition), but next time in a transparent and accountable way.
As for ICANN ... IMO the issue is more complex. To me this has been the most important -- and most positive -- thing ICANN has done for the public interest since I've been involved.
I reject the slippery slope argument that ICANN's going along with the demand of its government overseer amounts to opening the door for ongoing micro-management by California. It should be reminded that this is the first time that the CA DOJ has intervened in ICANN's existence, it didn't even get involved when ICANN abandoned public voting for the Board.
No matter where ICANN incorporates it will have a government overseer, so moving isn't the answer (unless it's to a laissez-faire location like Liberia or the Caymans). The system worked exactly as it was supposed to, but in doing so exposed a significant and long-time flaw in ICANN governance; it just doesn't consider the public interest in its decisions as much as it should. This problem is structural, deliberate, and not easy to fix; if ICANN is not to be accountable to governments, then to whom? Arguably ALAC has a significant role to play in whatever transformation is required to bring the public interest deep inside ICANN decision-making and indeed culture.
- Evan